You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As discussed in #4245 (comment), it could be useful to have a way to further customize when requests are retried by the load balancer while proxying. As far as I know, all of that comment is now supported/implemented except this part:
Empty response (no response body) or socket closed before receiving a response
On TLS handshake error (I'm not sure if we already do for these or not, but writing it down here for now)
Response timeout (i.e. response_header_timeout HTTP transport option, or read_timeout fastcgi transport option), i.e. server took too long to respond
By response status code (e.g. server actually responded with 503 Service Unavailable from an upstream proxy)
As always, non-GET/HEAD/OPTIONS requests that are retried for any reason other than "the connection to the backend failed" is unsafe by default, so the user would have to carefully configure conditions in which the request is idempotent and may be retried. One common example is an Idempotency-Key header which the backend app must honor (properly implement).
Opening this issue as a more focused discussion on just this remaining facet of the whole previous discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As discussed in #4245 (comment), it could be useful to have a way to further customize when requests are retried by the load balancer while proxying. As far as I know, all of that comment is now supported/implemented except this part:
As always, non-GET/HEAD/OPTIONS requests that are retried for any reason other than "the connection to the backend failed" is unsafe by default, so the user would have to carefully configure conditions in which the request is idempotent and may be retried. One common example is an Idempotency-Key header which the backend app must honor (properly implement).
Opening this issue as a more focused discussion on just this remaining facet of the whole previous discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: